Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oakland

July 22, 2004 - The Times sues Oakland in Alameda County Superior Court, demanding the names and salaries of the city's employees. The state's newspapers quickly rally to the case on the side of disclosure. Public employee unions join the case on the side of the city.
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (pdf)
Memo. of Points and Authorities in Support of Writ of Mandate (pdf)

Nov. 8, 2004 - Alameda County Superior Judge Steven A. Brick orders the disclosure of the salaries, writing the information is needed "so that citizens can effectively monitor the activities of the government." The data shows that 74 of the cities' 100 highest paid employees are police and firefighters and that some increased their yearly gross by more than $100,000 through overtime.
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate (pdf)

April 18, 2005 - The California First District Court of Appeal upholds Brick's decision in a 3-0 ruling. "Payment of public employees' salaries is a public expense, and the amounts and recipients of that expense are public records," the justices wrote. The decision sharply contradicts the October 2003 decision by a different panel of appellate justices in the Priceless case.
Court of Appeal Ruling (pdf)
Court of Appeal Ruling (doc)

May 27, 2005 - The unions appeal to the Supreme Court, which on July 27 grants review of the case.Numerous groups petition for leave to file as Amici Curiae. The ACLU of Northern California files its petition in support of releasing the records.
ACLU's Petition (pdf)

Aug. 27, 2007 -The Supreme Court rules 7-0 in favor of disclosure of non-police officer salaries. It also carves a small exemption for officer's working in undercover or dangerous positions where release of names may endanger them, but otherwise rules that police salaries can be disclosed. One justice dissents on the issue of releasing police data.
Supreme Court Ruling (pdf)
Supreme Court Ruling (doc)